Skip to main content
· 5/31/2017

Deadrick Garrett v. State of Tennessee

Syllabus

Deadrick Garrett (\the Petitioner\) appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to: (1) communicate with the Petitioner and adequately explain criminal and trial procedure (2) review discovery with the Petitioner, including witness statements and forensic evidence (3) have the Petitioner evaluated by a mental health expert and pursue a diminished capacity theory of defense (4) anticipate that the trial court would deny a self-defense jury instruction and develop a viable alternative defense and (5) object to the Petitioner's demonstrating on crossexamination that he could open the knife used in the murder with one hand. The Petitioner further asserts that trial counsel improperly: (6) advised a defense witness to be hostile towards the victim (7) instructed the Petitioner to \cry on cue\ and (8) fabricated the Petitioner's trial testimony \so as to create some justification for [the Petitioner's] stabbing [the victim].\ After a thorough review of the appellate record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding case was tried in equity despite evidentiary objections by trial court
  • concluding case was tried in equity despite evidentiary objections by trial court
  • affirming permanent injunction requiring removal of twelve-story grain leg constructed without proper approvals in flight path for airport runway
  • noting the concept of federal preemption is based upon the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the question of whether a federal statute preempts state common law is one of federal law, and state courts are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court
  • stating 24 preemption is an affirmative defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.